On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:23:31AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I think the tricky part is when a driver for "renesas,i2c-r8a7790" is updated > >> with a new feature for r8a7790, which doesn't necessarily exist in r8a7791. > >> Then the compatible entry above will cause breakage. > > > > If the driver is updated in that way, then it MUST introduce an r8a7791 > > compatible entry and make sure the new feature is only used on r8a7790. > > Otherwise it is a bug. If this is adhered, we won't have a breakage > > because the specific entry (here r8a7791) always comes first. Or? > > That will indeed prevent breakage. But in the distributed development world, > the person who modifies the driver may not be aware of the r8a7791. Then it will break even with a seperate r8a7791 compatible entry as well, sadly. Currently, the only thing encoded in the .data field of all compatibles, is which generation of the core is used. This is the same for r8a7790 and r8a7791 (this is why they ARE compatible ;)). So, even in the unlikely case of an r8a7790-only-feature, some code/reactoring to make the distinction is absolutely necessary.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
